What’s the new revised felony count?
We have 34 guilty in NY.
DC?
GEORGIA?
FLA?
dc is 4
fl was 37
ga is 13
No permission required. In the common law tradition (different from the civil law tradition), the judiciary does not directly supervise the prosecutor’s decision to lay charges. That’s part of the separation of powers: the executive decides whether to charge; the judicial branch decides the outcome.
That’s even more so in the United States, where the Constitution assigns the charging power to a grand jury of citizens. The courts don’t have an inherent power to directly supervise the grand jury’s exercise of its constitutional power.
That’s not to say that a particular indictment can’t be challenged, on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct or abuse of discretion, or failure to comply with the relevant law relating to grand jury procedure. (That’s one of the issues in the Georgia case.) But that’s on a case-by-case basis on the facts of each case. There’s no general power in the courts to require the prosecutor to justify or explain the indictment given by the grand jury. Whether the indictment is a good charge or not will be determined at trial.
In one Canadian Supreme Court case, the Court stated that the courts take no role in charging decisions, because they do not want the accused or the public to think that by directly supervising the prosecutor’s decision, the courts are supportive of the charges before the trial even starts.
In contrast to the current Supreme Court (US) with judges actively calling for cases to be pursued now that a majority is willing and able to overturn decades of precedent.
2 posts were merged into an existing topic: FBI Search and Seizure at Trump’s Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
in the court room now.
lauro, blanche, and bove are team trump.
windom and gatson are team usa.
from cnn:
“We are here regarding next steps in this case,” judge says as hearing begins.
Former President Donald Trump is being arraigned on the superseding indictment, Judge Tanya Chutkan said in court Thursday. Trump’s attorney John Lauro just pled not guilty to the superseding indictment.
Chuktan confirmed Trump’s plea of not guilty.
“That is right,” Lauro responded.
“I will consider his arraignment for the superseding indictment to be complete,” Chutkan said.
Judge Tanya Chutkan says she sees “two main questions” today in court: how to resolve the immunity issue and what the rest of the schedule will look like.
“Let’s first talk about the immunity issue,” Chutkan says.
Judge Tanya Chutkan calls prosecutor Thomas Windom to the lectern to discuss immunity.
“Why should we depart from the ordinary course here?” Chutkan asks Windom.
“I don’t think that we are in a typical situation,” Windom says. “We are in a place where the Supreme Court has created new law.”
“A guiding principle here is that we should structure a schedule” that leads to only one appeal, Windom says.
Windom says he wants a single appeal to deal with all immunity issues “at the same time, simultaneously.”Windom says that the special counsel’s immunity arguments would contain “a number of exhibits,” including transcripts of grand jury testimony.
In the brief, the prosecutor says, “we would set forth for the court” why the conduct is “private in nature and not subject to immunity.”
Prosecutor Tom Windom and the judge are discussing timing for the prosecution’s brief, which Windom says would address why they believe the “presumption of immunity is rebutted” related to former Vice President Mike Pence.
“What we have said is that we leave the specific date to the court’s discretion” Windom says of filing deadlines. But, he notes, “we do actually have to write this thing.”
Judge Tanya Chutkan jokes that maybe Windom has it in his binder.
“I would be surprised by that,” Windom says.
Windom says that prosecutors have “begun” writing those arguments, but expect they need two to three weeks to finish.
Chutkan notes that would put the brief at the end of September.
(team trump now)
Trump’s attorney John Lauro is now discussing the schedule with Judge Tanya Chutkan.
The defense discussion follows a lengthy exchange between the judge and the prosecution about how they envision the proceedings unfolding.
Lauro tells the judge he “can’t imagine a more unfair protocol” on proceeding with the special counsel’s proposed schedule for the case.
Lauro argues the proposal “turns the criminal rules on its head,” arguing that it denies the defense the ability to go through discovery issues.
“It’s enormously prejudicial to President Trump,” Lauro says.
Chutkan asks why Lauro can’t deal with these issues simultaneously, saying, “We can all walk and chew gum at the same time.”
But Lauro insists “we need everything that we are entitled to … before we address these issues.”
Trump attorney John Lauro says that the Supreme Court “already decided” whether prosecutors can use evidence around former Vice President Mike Pence.
Chutkan responded, “I would disagree with you, Mr. Lauro They sent that to me to figure out.”
“The issue before the court is whether or not the government can overcome the presumption,” Lauro says, of immunity, specifically pointing to communications between Donald Trump and Pence.
This issue of communications with Pence “needs to be decided right away,” Lauro said.
Chutkan says that “conversations with the vice president are subject to the presumptive immunity,” but says that she is tasked with deciding whether those conversations were “outside” the bounds of official presidential conduct.
“I don’t think I can decide that as a matter of law. I’d be risking reversal if I tried to,” Chutkan said of the Pence evidence.
Defense attorney John Lauro wants Judge Tanya Chutkan to first make a decision on whether the superseding indictment against former President Donald Trump itself is legitimate.
Lauro explains that because evidence about former Vice President Mike Pence’s role in the certification of electoral college certification was presented to a grand jury, prosecutors have already breached presidential immunity protections.
“The reality is, your honor, we are dealing with an illegitimate indictment from the get-go,” Lauro says.
Chutkan suggests handling the issue as part of their reply to the government’s first brief on immunity.
Judge Tanya Chutkan and defense attorney John Lauro are sparring over which legal team would file briefings on the issue of presidential immunity first, and whether Trump’s attorneys can have access to prosecutors’ evidence before those filings are due.
Lauro says they’re not suggesting the case should go into the fall of next year, but rather that the issues at hand need to be dealt with carefully.
Chutkan says “immunity needs to be dealt with as early as possible.”
But Lauro is asking for an evidentiary hearing, saying, “We need a full and robust record.”
He adds that “it’s incredibly unfair that they (prosecutors) are able to put in the public record” evidence against Trump at this time, suggesting that it’s too close to the election.
This court is not concerned with the electoral schedule,” Chutkan responds. “That is not something I am going to consider.”
“I am definitely not getting dragged into” the election, the judge adds.
Defense attorney John Lauro continues to fight for a protracted schedule.
Lauro says that he believes defense attorneys and the special counsel will be able to work out some of these evidentiary issues around immunity themselves.
“What is the rush to judgement that the special counsel is suggesting,” Lauro says.
“There is something unseemly” about how quickly this case is going, Lauro says.
Judge Tanya Chutkan pushes back, saying that “we are hardly sprinting to the finish line here.”
“We all know that whatever my decision on immunity is is going to be appealed,” Chutkan says, adding that “there needs to be some forward motion in this case.”
Judge Tanya Chutkan and defense attorney John Lauro are going back and forth in court now.
“We are talking about the presidency of the United States,” Lauro says.
“I am not talking about the presidency,” Chutkan says. “I am talking about a four count indictment.”
Chutkan continues:
“The subtext of your argument here about these sensitive times … it strikes me that what you’re trying to do is affect the presentation of this case so as not to impinge on an election.”
“The decisions here will not just affect this case, it will affect the republic going forward” Lauro responds.
So there’s officially been a new arraignment? Will there be another mugshot? The America-hating fuckstick needs to know, so he can cut up his suit again.
Over something that happened almost four years ago?
yes, and no. only georgia had a trump mug shot.
from cnn:
Prosecutor Tom Windom is back to respond to arguments from Trump attorney John Lauro, who argued vigorously against the schedule set out by the special counsel’s team.
Windom says some of Lauro’s arguments are moot, because there is no additional evidence in the case to turn over. The prosecutor declines to say how much of their evidence should remain under seal.
Judge Tanya Chutkan is now turning to another potential defense motion over whether the grand jury improperly heard evidence about former Vice President Mike Pence.
She says she wants to know whether this is a separate challenge to the indictment than the one they have already discussed.
Donald Trump attorney John Lauro says the motions are separate but the communication with Pence will be the main focus as they move to dismiss the superseding indictment.
Prosecutor Tom Windom responds, saying, “It seems that what Mr. Lauro is suggesting is a two-step process.”
Prosecutor Tom Windom again says that it would be prudent for the judge to decide immunity issues first.
The judge could then decide whether to dismiss the case, he added.
team trump raised the question of smith’s legality. chutkin is giving team trump a chance to file reasoning why she should go against the dc appeal court ruling that smith is legally appointed.
chutkin is not bound by cannon’s decision.
the above is from msnbc.
from cnn:
Trump’s defense has returned to an argument over whether special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment to lead the election interference case was legitimate, alluding to a ruling by a federal judge in Florida to throw out the classified documents case — a separate investigation into the former president also led by Smith and his team.
During a protracted back-and-forth with Judge Tanya Chutkan, defense attorney John Lauro raises the “illegitimacy of Mr. Smith.”
“We have an illegitimate prosecutor, we have an illegitimate indictment, and we have illegitimate legal issues raised in that indictment,” Lauro says.
He points to the ruling by Florida Judge Aileen Cannon — who has faced intense scrutiny over her handling of the documents case — to suggest something similar could be done in this case regarding Smith’s appointment.
But Chutkan says there is DC circuit precedent that may lead her to deny a motion to dismiss Smith. And Chutkan sounds skeptical of the Cannon ruling.
“You have an opinion filed by another district judge in another circuit, which frankly this court doesn’t find particularly persuasive,” she says.
Lauro is also arguing that the court should factor in criticism of Smith’s appointment from conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote in a concurrence on the court’s presidential immunity ruling that Attorney General Merrick Garland may have violated the Constitution when he appointed Smith.
Prosecutors respond: Prosecutor Tom Windom responds to the arguments from Lauro, saying Trump’s team could have filed on the issue of Smith’s appointment earlier.
“They knew about the issue, they had the opportunity to file before,” Windom says, arguing that Trump should have filed his challenge to Smith before the case was paused for appeals. “They are suggesting somehow that a lone justice’s concurrence” has “somehow reopened the issue” of Smith’s appointment, Windom says.
Bottom line: Chutkan says she will allow Lauro to file a motion on the issue of Smith’s appointment, but says she wants him to address the DC precedent she referenced.
Judge Tanya Chutkan is now moving to the Supreme Court’s decision limiting how prosecutors can use obstruction charges against January 6 defendants.
Defense attorney John Lauro says that “it will be a whole new brief” to address the issue of obstruction in the case.
Chutkan pushes Lauro over his repeated assertion that defense attorneys are now dealing with a new indictment. It’s not new, she says, its the same charges. And of the allegations: “It’s not more stuff, it’s less.”
court has wrapped up for today. there will be a scheduling order from chutkin to follow.
I think I’m in love.
As you know as well as I, Chutkan is a legal goddess. That she and Cannon must be uttered in the same breath is an insult to Chutkan.
I loved those bits, too. 
Not enough raucous applause gifs on the internet for this one.
meanwhile from the other side all we got is …
“I object, your honor! This trial is a travesty. It’s a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.”
TLDR version:
Trump team: “Delay delay delay! We need more delay! We want to delay this as long as possible. Trump is too important! He’s special! NEED DELAY!”
It’s disgusting; not at all surprising, in fact it’s expected, but still disgusting that the defense insists that the court needs to schedule itself around the convenience of Trump’s campaign.
Once again, if you don’t want trials to screw up your nominee’s campaign, don’t be an idiot and nominate someone indicted for crimes. The courts don’t give a crap and should not give a crap about that.
And always keep in mind that the government/Biden didn’t launch these trials to interfere with the election, Trump launched an election campaign to interfere with the trials.
I don’t have a problem with taking elections into account if the delay is minimal.